Research shows anti-Clinton/pro-Obama bias

Bill Maxwell at the St. Petersburg Times wrote this column today that outlined the media's anti-Hillary bias, citing evidence from several new studies:

"...Several independent watchdog organizations, including Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and the Center for Media and Public Affairs, have documented persistent and widespread bias against Clinton and in favor of Obama.

"The Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that since mid December, when the Iowa caucuses came into play, Obama has received the lion's share of the positive coverage: 'From Dec. 16 through Jan. 27, five out of six on-air evaluations of Obama (84 percent) have been favorable, compared to a bare majority (51 percent) of evaluations of Mrs. Clinton. The gap in good press widened since the New Hampshire primary, with Clinton dropping to 47 percent positive comments and Obama holding steady at 83 percent positive.

" 'NBC's coverage has been the most critical of Clinton - nearly 2 to 1 negative (36 percent positive and to 64 percent negative). Conversely, ABC's coverage was most supportive - nearly 2 to 1 positive (63 percent vs. 37 percent). CBS and Fox were more balanced - 50 percent positive comments on Fox and 56 percent positive on CBS.'

"The Pew Research Center found a sharp difference in tone between coverage of Clinton and Obama. Here, I also must address the pundits. Most, left and right, have been unfriendly to Clinton, some writing her obit and others advising her to fold up her tent. Obama, on the other hand, has been treated like the Second Coming."

more

Obama's Math Problem

Marie Cocco at WaPo writes about unmentionable's (I know, he's mentioned in the headline) caucus and primary wins show exactly why Hillary is the stronger candidate in the general election:

"Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall...

"There is a reason some states are called general election 'battlegrounds.' It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the 'bellwether' nature of Ohio: 'It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,' she said.

"There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually..."

more

The Times of London, "They Must Go for Hillary Clinton"

Anatole Kaletsky at the Times of London argues that Our Lady is the one for the job.

She's the one we've been waiting for

thanks to voxdixit at crapbuiltonlies for this image

Above it all he ain't (is that colloquial enough to use on the trail, in preacher voice?)

Apparently the unmentionable's staff really does assrape the press, and some don't love him for it. 

Oink

Don' get me wrong about pork (as in barrel spending--I'm vegan after all), but the unmentionable certainly loves a good earmark, fried. When will hopetards start the self mutilation out of despair? Oh, March 4. 

I miss grass. Sometimes

(hopetards: when unmentionable loses, feel free to take a break from your arms to help an old lady w/her lawn)

Hopetards bend over (Nafta Shafta)

Apparently the unmentionable's campaign dispatched senior economic advisor Austin Goolsbee to soothe Canadian Government fears that he was articulating an anti-NAFTA position, despite the fact that he is. "Don't listen to all of that," Goolsbee said. "It's just talk." (ok, I'm paraphrasing for you.)

Thank you to AP's Nedra Pickler for blowing the lid off by obtaining the smoking-gun Canadian Gov. memo and filing this extensive report.

And to Jake Tapper (we heart him, at least briefly) for his post and inspiring headline on ABC's Political Punch, which sums it up this way:

"The Obama campaign over the weekend falsely claimed the CTV story had been 'retracted.' It has not.

And in fact, the story seems today more alive than ever. That is, if the press does its job. If."

Will Hopetards still love him tomorrow?

Take lobbyist money? Yes, Yes he does.

I hear the unmentionable say again and again that he's "not beholden to corporate interests and Washington lobbyists." Another example of his ability to spoonfeed shit to the American people, media, fellow Democrats--and they think it tastes like swiss cake rolls. Here's a break down of exactly how unmentionable is lying about his ties to PACs, lobbyists, etc--from Michael Dobbs' FactChecker blog at WaPo last Fall, which examined his and Edwards' claims to be above it all, etc.:

" -They still take money from state lobbyists.

-They make no attempt to distinguish between lobbyists for big corporations and lobbyists for small non-profits. They treat a lobbyist for Haliburton in the same way as a lobbyist for child poverty or cancer research.

-They accept money from former lobbyists and future lobbyists.

-As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)

-They have no problem about taking money from people representing other "special interests," e.g. trial lawyers and the hedge fund industry.

So far this year, according to Opensecrets.org, Edwards has taken more than $8 million from lawyers and law firms, some of whom employ the federally-registered lobbyists whose lucre he refuses to touch. Obama is not far behind: $7.5 million. (Clinton has taken $9.2 million.)

Obama has emphasized that he does not take money from PhRMA, the powerful lobbying arm of the pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, he does not seem to mind taking money from senior employees of PhRMA members, such as Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Campaign finance records show that he has raised about $250,000 in pharmaceutical-related contributions this year. (Clinton collected $269,000.) He has also not been averse to helping out Illinois-based pharmaceutical companies with "tariff suspensions." more

"A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder." No Shit.

We're at this point in the campaign, and a major national daily finally writes that current Senators and former colleagues in the Illinois state legislature are saying that the unmentionable has a thin record on bipartisanship, that he's unwilling to take political risks, that he's better known for his ambition than substance? Thanks Washington Post, thanks David Ignatius. I wish you had published this months ago before the unmentionablematons' music videos caused this nation (or at least this apartment) to be flooded with vomit. Fortunately, pets like to eat vomit. 

Yes, You can shove it

Thank you to Can't Fight City Hall for this post:I support Hillary Clinton, so you can take your “We are the Change we’ve been waiting for” and shove it!

Compulsive lying about NAFTA, Labor, Energy

Thanks to fleaflicker at MyDD for posting this breakdown of the unmentionable one's inconsistent positions on NAFTA, labor and energy policy.

Ready to Be Commander-in-Chief

HRC today received an endorsement from former Joint Chiefs Chairman (Bush 41, Clinton) Hugh Shelton.: "I’ve been with Senator Clinton when she has been with our military men and women," Shelton said in a statement. "I know from those experiences that she understands the demands and sacrifice of military life. I am confident she will always put the readiness and well being of our troops first. She is ready to be commander-in-chief" 

And they blamed papa Bill?

New Republic's Sean Wilentz has a new article that examines how the unmentionable's campaign injected race into the race. Like a prison wife getting his ass slammed again and again, the tards will only love him more for this, I'm sure. 

Battered wife syndrome

Todd Spivak at the Houston Press reveals how a certain Jim Jonesian presidential candidate climbed over the backs of and exploited fellow established state  legislators. Revelations include: using unknown loopholes in election law to get opponents (including established liberal community leader incumbent) thrown off of ticket so he could run unchallenged; didn't accomplish anything in first several terms, until kingmaker state senate leader attached his name as sponsor to more than 20 important bills in one year, so he could have platform of "experience" to run for US Senate; (won US Senate seat against lunatic Alan Keyes--not news, but no feat that. I'd rather vote for Keyes, myself); isn't such a nice guy when not having salad tossed by media and public; etc.